memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Kennelly
Kennelly, I just have a minor comment -- our database stores every edit you make independantly, rather than overwriting the old version, so rather than making dozens of minor edits to the same article in short periods of time, it might be better to use the preview function, or simply try to perform multiple edits to the entire article and then save it, as resaving each subsection article edit repeatedly makes it take large amounts of diskspace. Other than that, thanks for all the good edits and for helping Memory-Alpha! -- Captain Mike K. Bartel categories * Regarding the categorization of provisional categories, those that you have categorized and those not yet categorized are being compiled and are set to be done by a bot. Therefore, they do not need to be done manually to "clog" our 'recent changes' page with a bunch of minor edits. --Alan del Beccio 16:01, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) Replaced pic I replaced your "File:Cap001.JPG" with File:Kennelly has ginger tea.jpg, as the original name was not very descriptive; I also cropped out the black outer ridge and shrunk it a little. Feel free to put it on what ever page you intended on now, - AJHalliwell 20:50, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT) Saratoga in Aquiel I noticed you put the reference to the Saratoga being in "Aquiel" was back in the article. Can you tell me where this ship was mentioned in that episode? Was it in an early version of the script? Locarno 13:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC) It's on a viewscreen in the last third of the episode when Rocha's logs are shown. Kennelly 13:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Valerian root tea I didn't know that before as well, but Valerian is the English word for the German "Baldrian", so what was meant in "Second chances" was Valerian root tea (Baldrian Tee) from Earth. So there is no connection to the species with the same name. --Jörg 14:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Ship Name formats When adding ship names, they should be formatted like this: , as opposed to . Thanks! -- Sulfur 21:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Telemarius III I moved the page you created to Telemarius IV. The script says III, but onscreen, Data actually says IV when telling Jenna about the flowers. Your user page has a link to III (which redirects to IV now), so I thought I'd let you know. I fixed all the other pages that linked to it. Tired_ 13:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC) "Reginald Barclay" FA nomination Hi there. I noticed you have made a contribution to the Reginald Barclay article. Perhaps you would consider voting for it in the nomination process? If you support the article as one of Memory Alpha's best works, simply put Support along with your reasoning. If you object to the article becoming featured, just put Oppose along with your reasoning. Featured articles help us to showcase the Memory Alpha community's ability and it's only through the participation of users such as yourself that we can get these articles featured. Thanks for your time. Live long and prosper! --| TrekFan Open a channel 15:19, February 19, 2011 (UTC) Orphans Hey. When creating articles please make sure they are no orphans and are linked from another article and/or the episode/film they're referenced in. Thanks. Tom (talk) 21:49, October 26, 2015 (UTC) Changing articles to categories When you're changing articles to categories, please consider the incoming links and the usage of said article before doing so. When you arbitrarily redid Maneuvers and tactics, you a) broke the article, and you b) broke about 50 incoming links. -- sulfur (talk) 12:53, December 15, 2015 (UTC) Categories on redirects Could you please explain why you're removing all categories from many of the redirects? They were deliberately applied to the redirects for valid reasons (at least in most cases). Please stop removing them unless you have a good reason for doing so. Thanks. -- Renegade54 (talk) 16:36, December 22, 2015 (UTC) :I do have good reasons. Please list specific examples where you diagree. Kennelly (talk) 16:38, December 22, 2015 (UTC) ::Saying "good reasons" isn't a good reason. Also, you're removing perfectly valid categories on some of these things. Why? -- sulfur (talk) 16:50, December 22, 2015 (UTC) The categories are on the redirects so that they show up in the category listing(s). The category listings are like an index to our article pages. It doesn't matter if the redirect has the same category as the article it points to... it's still a valid term and deserves to be categorized. We've just decided that either we don't have enough canon material to justify an article page for that redirect, or it's already covered on the page the redirect points to, or it's an alternate term for the subject of the article it points to. -- Renegade54 (talk) 17:03, December 22, 2015 (UTC) Also, you may have noticed that when you made similar edits to redirects back in November, those edits were reverted then by several other admins. You should have taken a hint from that and, at a minimum, opened up a discussion on the topic... not just gone back and reapplied your previous edits. -- Renegade54 (talk) 17:14, December 22, 2015 (UTC) Links to disambiguation pages Just a heads up note, but careful on links that go to disambiguation pages, such as "reactor" on the Helium article you recently edited. -- sulfur (talk) 17:10, January 12, 2016 (UTC) Red links Just want to let you know that red links, you've recently removed some by saying "never used", could also origin in okudagrams, personnel files or anything else only "seen" in the episode. These terms would not appear in the script of an episode. Tom (talk) 17:18, January 23, 2016 (UTC) :I'm pretty sure they don't, since very similar terms were used in dialogue like quantum theorist instead of quantum theory, for which someone incorrectly created a red link. But feel free to prove me wrong. Kennelly (talk) 17:28, January 23, 2016 (UTC) If you're pretty sure, ok. I thought you found a way to check all screen references. ;) We'll see if the terms will ever be created again. Tom (talk) 17:39, January 23, 2016 (UTC) Indenting on talk pages Indenting stays consistent for each responder. So if you are the first person in a conversation, you never indent. Please see MA:TALK for details. -- sulfur (talk) 15:45, February 10, 2016 (UTC) Renaming/moving articles/files Hi. Please use the "rename" tag when suggesting a move of an article or file. When opening a talk page without adding this tag, a move could last very long as nobody would notice this suggestion. Thanks. Tom (talk) 15:46, March 1, 2016 (UTC) Archer alive/active in 2222 What's the citation for this? There's no other mention of that date in the article... Can you expand on that please? -- sulfur (talk) 16:30, March 14, 2016 (UTC) :See my comment on User:Archduk3's talkpage. Kennelly (talk) 16:33, March 14, 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia links When you're creating an article on something that really exists, like pond or ravine, please remember to add the wikipedia link. Thanks! --LauraCC (talk) 17:06, March 17, 2016 (UTC) Sir Thomas Erpingham As the person who created the page "Sir Thomas Erpingham", I would like to express my thanks to you for rewriting the article. You did a wonderful job. Again, thanks.--Memphis77 (talk) 17:01, April 2, 2016 (UTC) "Famine" reasons Why did you do away with the way I had organized the references? I'd grouped the famine references by common causes. Alternately, I suppose I'' could have used headings instead of lumping them together in the same paragraph. :) --LauraCC (talk) 16:19, June 9, 2016 (UTC) :IIRC you had the famines on Bajor grouped seperately due to being caused "by war". Famine is be definition not enough food being available in location x, whether due to war, crop failure or deliberate policy like in RL 1930s Ukraine. Besides, there was no active war in 2370 on Bajor and the Occupation wasn't a classic war as in "food shipments are not delivered due to active fighting" so the description was somewhat misleading. I still mention the occupation and its consequences. Kennelly (talk) 20:31, June 9, 2016 (UTC) Thanks for explaining. I was trying to illustrate causation. --LauraCC (talk) 20:33, June 9, 2016 (UTC) Canon to real world I re-added the bit about Corgal II, but as a bg note instead of canon. --LauraCC (talk) 18:13, September 11, 2016 (UTC) Request In April you've requested screenshots from all those pages Data studied in . I see no reason uploading every page seen as there is already a . Hope this helps. Tom (talk) 23:28, September 24, 2016 (UTC) Sea Witch Regarding your recent edit of Sea Witch, do you have a concrete reason to say the ships aren't the same? If you do, it seems that whatever info you might have might make for a highly interesting background information, but if you don't, I don't think the phrasing ought to have been changed. -- Capricorn (talk) 00:32, October 7, 2016 (UTC) :Uhm, the previous version was actually even less clear saying "the same model or a very similar one"-if that isn't speculation, I don't know. Since we don't know if it is the same model (150 years apart!) we shouldn't speculate it is. The article isn't about the model, but about the original ship after all. Kennelly (talk) 07:58, October 7, 2016 (UTC) Ah, my thinking was the exact reverse: your rewrite effectively made the article state that it is not the same, which is speculation as well. It goes both ways you see. And besides, saying "a similar model" is misleading since that suggests they have some differences in appearance when apparently the same model was used in both scenes. But ok, this isn't a big problem: I think it ought to be possible to rewrite the sentence to adres both your and mine concerns, and I'll look into that right now. :) -- Capricorn (talk) 15:59, October 9, 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia links Hey. For terms that exist in the real world, too, such as Vital organ or Referee, don't forget to add the wikipedia external links. I've done it already for those articles. --LauraCC (talk) 16:08, November 23, 2016 (UTC) Categories Hey. Just noticed that you've added the "Category:Monarchs" to some individuals. I did not add this category but "Earth government officials" instead because there was no in-universe proof that they were monarchs. Now we have two sub-categories of the same tree on these pages. Any thoughts? Tom (talk) 14:55, December 9, 2016 (UTC) :I'd say they are two different branches of that category which can coexist on the same page, since one is grouping by location and one by "type" of government. Kennelly (talk) 14:57, December 9, 2016 (UTC) File categories I am not mentioning the Borg again but the holograms are only categorized in Category:Memory Alpha images (holograms). Please don't add another species category to these files. This would contradict the article categories. Here we only list the "Category:Holograms" and not the species of the projection. Thanks. Tom (talk) 17:19, January 6, 2017 (UTC) :Hi, I read Archduk3's comment on Category talk:Memory Alpha images (Borg) that there has been no final decision about this. In fact many,many images of holograms have both the hologram and their "physical appearance" cat. Kennelly (talk) 17:30, January 6, 2017 (UTC) I see. But why should the image category of the holograms be different than the article's category itself? On the articles, other species categories than the "Holograms" were removed by several regular contributors and admins. Tom (talk) 17:35, January 6, 2017 (UTC) :I understood it that since it's an image category, the image of a Human hologram should have both image cats. I don't really care, but right now this usage is super-inconsistent. :I actually wanted to ask about the images of surgically altered people, like File:Menos.jpg which currently doesn't have Category:Memory Alpha images (Vulcans), even though Menos has Category:Vulcans. Kennelly (talk) 17:45, January 6, 2017 (UTC) Rada plum Me again. Do you have any memory why you've created this article under "Rada plum"? What was the source? Thanks. Tom (talk) 17:22, January 6, 2017 (UTC) :That was back in 2007 and I had no DVDs with the original language version back then. It must have been either from another transcript site or from the German language version. Unfortunately I don't have that particular DVD to check right now. Kennelly (talk) 17:37, January 6, 2017 (UTC) Brain category Lost track of MA:CS#Brain? --LauraCC (talk) 19:57, February 16, 2017 (UTC) ''Constitution-class FA review Hi Kennelly, I noticed you commented in the ''Constitution''-class FA review but haven't yet voted. Would you perhaps consider voting so we can move this one along? Thanks! --| TrekFan Open a channel 18:45, February 17, 2018 (UTC) FA review project Hi Kennelly. I am currently in the process of going through the FA list with a view to bringing the article's statuses up to date as some of them haven't been looked at for over ten years and have changed quite significantly in that time. Consider it a little project of mine. As an established user, I was hoping I could ask you to keep an eye on the Memory Alpha:Featured article reviews page from time to time and perhaps weigh in on any discussions there to help speed up the review process? I'm not asking you to necessarily agree with anything I post there, just trying to encourage discussion on the subject. Thanks in advance. --| TrekFan Open a channel 17:17, March 27, 2018 (UTC) Getting Romulan history featured I think it is time to get Romulan history featured. What do you think? --36ophiuchi (talk) 18:48, August 25, 2018 (UTC) :I just made a general pass over the page, with many tweaks and additions. Take a look and see what you like/dislike. One "style" thing that I feel could be added are a few sub-chapters for the 22nd and 23rd century. Kennelly (talk) 21:50, August 25, 2018 (UTC) ::The tweaks look fine. I've added some myself, as well as subchapters for the 22nd 23rd centuries and two more images. --36ophiuchi (talk) 00:23, August 26, 2018 (UTC)